Judicial Information System Committee (JISC) · June 26, 2015 August 28, 2015 October 23, 2015 December 4. 2015 . JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM COMMITTEE ... March 6, 2015 Page 2 of

Judicial Information System Committee (JISC) Friday, April 24, 2015 (10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.) CALL IN NUMBER: 800-591-2259 PC: 288483 SeaTac Facility: 18000 INTERNATIONAL BLVD, SUITE 1106, SEATAC, WA 98188

AGENDA

1. Call to Order

a. Introductions b. Approval of Minutes

Justice Mary Fairhurst, Chair

10:00 – 10:10

Tab 1

2. JIS Budget Update

a. 13-15 Budget Update b. 15-17 Budget

Mr. Ramsey Radwan, MSD Director

10:10 – 10:55 Tab 2

3. Legislative Update Ms. Mellani McAleenan, Assoc. Dir. Judicial & Legislative Relations 10:55 – 11:15 Tab 3

4. INH/EDR Project Update Mr. Dan Belles, PMP 11:15 – 11:45 Tab 4

5. JIS Priority Project #2: Appellate Court Enterprise Content Management System

a. Project Update

Mr. Martin Kravik 11:45 – 12:30 Tab 5

Lunch (Working) 12:30-12:50

6.

JIS Priority Project #1: Superior Court Case Management Update

a. Project Update b. SC-CMS Integrations Update c. SC-CMS Bluecrane QA Report

Ms. Maribeth Sapinoso, PMP Ms. Marie Constantineau Mr. Allen Mills

12:50 – 1:15 Tab 6

7.

Other JIS Priority Project Updates

a. Priority Project #3 (ITG 41) – CLJ Revised Computer Records Retention/ Destruction Process

b. Priority Project # 4 (ITG 102) CLJ-CMS

Mr. Kevin Ammons, PMO/QA Mgr. for Ms. Kate Kruller, PMP Mr. Mike Walsh, PMP

1:15 – 1:40 Tab 7

8. Committee Report a. Data Dissemination Committee

Judge Thomas Wynne 1:40 – 1:50

9. Meeting Wrap-Up Justice Mary Fairhurst 1:50 – 2:00

10. Information Materials a. ITG Status Report

Tab 8

Persons with a disability, who require accommodation, should notify Pam Payne at 360-705-5277 [email protected] to request or discuss accommodations. While notice 5 days prior to the event is preferred, every effort will be made to provide accommodations, when requested.

mailto:[email protected]

Judicial Information System Committee Meeting Agenda, April 24, 2015 Page 2 of 2

Future Meetings:

2015 – Schedule June 26, 2015 August 28, 2015 October 23, 2015 December 4. 2015

JUDICIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM COMMITTEE

March 6, 2015 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

AOC Office, SeaTac, WA

DRAFT - Minutes Members Present: Justice Mary Fairhurst, Chair Mr. Larry Barker Chief Robert Berg Judge Jeanette Dalton - phone Ms. Callie Dietz Ms. Delilah George Mr. Rich Johnson Judge J. Robert Leach Ms. Barb Miner Ms. Brooke Powell Judge Steven Rosen Mr. Bob Taylor Mr. Jon Tunheim Ms. Aimee Vance Ms. Yolande Williams Judge Thomas J. Wynne Members Absent: Judge James Heller

AOC/Temple Staff Present: Mr. Kevin Ammons Ms. Tammy Anderson Mr. Dan Belles Ms. Jennifer Creighton Ms. Vicky Cullinane Ms. Vonnie Diseth Mr. Mike Keeling Mr. Eric Kruger Ms. Kate Kruller Mr. Dirk Marler Ms. Mellani McAleenan Ms. Pam Payne Mr. Ramsey Radwan Ms. Maribeth Sapinoso Ms. Heather Stoffle Mr. Kumar Yajamanam Guests Present: Judge Donna Tucker Judge Corinna Harn Mr. Othniel Palomino Ms. Lea Ennis Mr. Enrique Kuttemplon Ms. Joann Moore

Call to Order Justice Mary Fairhurst called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. and introductions were made. October 24, 2014 Meeting Minutes Justice Fairhurst asked if there were any additions or corrections to the October 24, 2014 meeting minutes. Hearing none, Justice Fairhurst deemed them approved. JIS Budget Update (13-15 Biennium) Mr. Ramsey Radwan presented an update on State General Fund Revenue. On February 20 the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council provided a new forecast. This provided information for legislature to start thinking about the budget. Supplemental budget will be done at the end of session. Revenues are projected to be up 8.7% between the current biennium and the next biennium, and another 9% between 15-17 and 17-19 biennia. It is anticipated that an additional $2.9 billion in revenue will be available in the next biennium. Of that $2.9 billion, about 75% will be consumed on ongoing activities. While revenues are up for the next few biennia so are costs. It will be the typical balancing act with legislature.

Mr. Ramsey Radwan presented the Judicial Information System Assessment. Current Judicial Information System (JIS) Account revenue and fund balance will not meet the anticipated expenditure needs of current projects, existing carry forward of staff and keeping the lights on.

JISC Minutes March 6, 2015 Page 2 of 9 Without additional resources the JIS account will experience a large deficit during the 2017-2019 biennium. No other fund source is available and financing options are very limited.

Mr. Radwan reviewed the two funding RCWs and the authority for the Supreme Court to increase the assessment and base traffic infraction via the rule making process. Mr. Radwan also provided the history of Penalty Increases.

Mr. Radwan reviewed the fund sweeps from the JIS account over the past 8 years. It equates to approximately $1.8 million a year or 9% annual reduction in revenue. This has directly affected the ability to fund projects.

Mr. Radwan reviewed estimated new costs that are over and above normal operations including the SC-CMS and CLJ-CMS projects, security, maintenance (for everything that surrounds the IT structure), one time and other project costs.

Using the Fiscal Growth Factor to determine growth, the proposal is to increase the JIS Assessment from $17 to $23, and the Base Penalty from $42 to $48.

Motion: Justice Mary Fairhurst

Recommend to the Supreme Court an increase in the current JIS assessment from $17 to $23 and increase of the base penalty for, $42 to $48. Second: Judge Steve Rosen Voting in Favor: Justice Mary Fairhurst, Mr. Larry Barker, Chief Robert Berg, Judge Jeanette Dalton, Ms. Callie Dietz, Ms. Delilah George, Mr. Rich Johnson, Judge J. Robert Leach, Ms. Barb Miner, Ms. Brooke Powell, Judge Steven Rosen, Mr. Bob Taylor, Mr. Jon Tunheim, Ms. Aimee Vance, Ms. Yolande Williams, Judge Thomas J. Wynne Opposed: none

Absent: Judge Jim Heller Information Networking Hub – (INH) Ms. Vonnie Diseth provided a brief summary of the work that has been done over the years regarding the INH and Data Exchanges. The INH is a large and complex concept and the Enterprise Data Repository (EDR) is a key component of that concept. Mr. Belles and Mr. Kruger are going to explain in detail what the INH is and how it is designed to work. In June 2011 Sierra Systems was hired to work on the Superior Court Data Exchange using the NIEM model. The purpose was to help Pierce County so they did not have to do double data entry anymore. Sixty-six web services were developed by Sierra Systems. During implementation time with Pierce County six of the services were enabled. This was due in part to complex issues with the NIEM model. Those web services are currently being used to integrate the Odyssey system with JIS. After the experience with Pierce County it was determined that the process by which to develop web services needed to be much simpler. In fall of 2014 the team regrouped to determine other alternatives and what could be done to simplify the processes for both AOC and the courts. Currently at AOC we have two teams focused on data exchanges. The Superior Court Case Management System (SC-CMS) integration team. They are working on three different pieces, One is the party synchronization between Odyssey and JIS; another is

JISC Minutes March 6, 2015 Page 3 of 9 the case replication between Odyssey and JIS; third is the link only option for document management integration with Odyssey for the counties which have elected to keep their current document management systems.

We also have another team working on the EDR, which will be explained in a few minutes by Mr. Belles and Mr. Kruger. Work has been ongoing for years, focusing on different aspects of the INH which is a larger concept.

**********

Mr. Belles provided a brief overview of the Information Networking Hub (INH) and the Enterprise Data Repository (EDR) and the differences between the two. Mr. Belles stated that the INH was a collection of components, processes, documents and governance that made up the AOC’s capability to exchange information between internal AOC and external court systems. Mr. Belles stated that the EDR was a smaller foundational component within the INH whose purpose was to receive, store and publish statewide shared information between courts.

Mr. Belles provided an overview of the EDR explaining that the goal was provide statewide shared data based on the approved JIS data standards and support the AOC’s long term modernization strategy. Mr. Belles stated that a Proof of Concept of the EDR was conducted and the results were beneficial in a number of areas. Mr. Belles continued that the EDR Proof of Concept demonstrated that the data in JIS could be successfully mapped to the JIS data standards and stored in a new database. He also stated that the Proof of Concept showed that data could be sent and retrieved from the EDR. Mr. Belles also stressed that the Proof of Concept allowed them to develop as user interface to view the data and baseline statistics on performance of the database that showed the current architecture was viable for future growth. Mr. Belles shared that the most productive aspect of the Proof of Concept was the development of the aspects and tasks needed to fully implement the EDR to production.

**********

Mr. Kruger gave an overview of what the EDR provides and a roadmap for the EDR development and integration. He provided a summary discussion on the EDR findings, integration implications, and effort for customer onboarding. After the presentation, there were several question asked by the attendees related to the EDR. Two of the significant question were:

1. “When King County District Court goes live, how will other courts get their information?” Summary Answer: The King County information will be in the EDR. Applications like JABS, ASRA, and others that need the information will be modified to access the EDR for data display.

2. “Should juvenile departments be planning on getting a new system (JCS replacement) so that it can get King County Superior case information” Short Answer: The impact to JCS has been identified and high level plans have been made to make changes to JCS to get necessary information from the EDR.”

Update on JISC Rule 13 & Discussions with Legislators Justice Mary Fairhurst provided an update on recent discussions with legislators regarding the changes to JIS Rule 13 recommended by the JISC. In October, the committee approved changes to JIS Rule 13 and recommended to the Supreme Court that the change to the rule be handled on an expedited basis. Due to conversations with legislators, Justice Fairhurst asked

JISC Minutes March 6, 2015 Page 4 of 9 the Rules Committee to put it on hold until she could she could discuss the outcome of the conversations with this committee. Representatives Hudgins and Hunter, who have been very involved both in our funding and in the provisos that our funding has been subject to, along with Senator Andy Hill all wanted to talk with Justice Fairhurst.

In a conversation with Representative Hunter in late December he expressed his unhappiness, especially stating that he did not want there to be any double data entry. That was not his intention with the provisos. Representative Hudgins determined he would be the main point of contact to work with us even though previously it has been both Representatives Hunter and Hudgins. The strong suggestion given to Justice Fairhurst was to work with King County to find a way to provide a resolution that does not result in double data entry.

INH and the EDR are already addressing some of the issues surrounding the concern of double data entry but AOC needed a willing partner to move forward. King County stated they are a willing partner and they have allocated county funding to move forward.

Justice Fairhurst met with Mr. Fred Jarrett from King County, and then in a follow up meeting that included Mr. Bill Kehoe and Ms. Vonnie Diseth, discussed the options of creating a solution that would eliminate double data entry for King County.

The AOC INH/EDR team and the King County IT team met multiple times to determine if it was even possible to achieve within the available time and resources limitations. A proposal was created as an outcome of those meetings that state the requirements and risks. It is estimated at a cost of $7.1 million dollars to make this project come to fruition. The proposal included the need for additional staff, contractors and more office space.

The time frame for completion of this project is early 2017, and this timeline is consistent with the timeline King County has set for their CMS RFP and project timeline. The final outcome is still to be determined by legislators for the funding and final approval.

While all of this was a digression away from JIS Rule 13, Justice Fairhurst stated she is not asking the committee to revisit the rule, but at this time she has asked the Rules Committee to put the request on hold the until all of the factors play out and we see what results from the current legislative session. Justice Fairhurst stated there are no issues with the data standards themselves as it provides direction and people can work to the same end. The concern is the hard date for courts to be considered in or out of JIS as of April 2014. The Rules Committee does have the option to modify the rule and enact it, or they can modify it and republish it.

Justice Fairhurst shared we have the opportunity to deliver a message as to what this committee wants to have done and she can deliver that message, or deliver a message that says we passed the data standards, and we are working on the other issues and we don’t need the enforcement, because the reason we thought we needed it was because of the what we understood the legislature to say in the previous budgetary proviso.

Ms. Mellani McAleenan provided an update on a meeting that took place with Representative Hudgins after the signed proposal was presented to him. Ms. Diseth, Ms. McAleenan, and Ms. Dietz met with Representative Hudgins to provide a high level briefing and discuss the options for completing the proposal. Representative Hudgins asked about the risks and if funding was provided whether the plan could be accomplished. Ms. Diseth answered there are risks and that AOC would need additional staff and facilities, but with adequate funding the proposal could be done.

JISC Minutes March 6, 2015 Page 5 of 9 While there was not actual commitment for funding at that meeting, there seemed to be an understanding about funding needs and the impact of the $22 million that has been swept from the JIS account during recent years. Representative Hudgins indicated that he planned to move it forward internally with the legislature.

Justice Mary Fairhurst asked for consensus that we respond to Justice Johnson that with the things that are in play right now we would like the Rules Committee to hold Rule 13 in abeyance until we (JISC) comes back with a follow up request.

ITG #2 – SC-CMS Update Mr. Dexter Mejia and Ms. Marcea Basham provided an overview of the decision needed on Odyssey case number format and codes for Odyssey courts as approved by the Court User Workgroup and the project team.

Motion: Judge Thomas Wynne

I move that the JISC approve the Superior Court Case Management System (SC-CMS) Court User Work Group’s (CUWG) recommendation to use a new case number format in the new statewide case management system for the 37 Superior Courts and County Clerk’s offices implementing Odyssey.

Second: Judge Jeanette Dalton Voting in Favor: Justice Mary Fairhurst, Mr. Larry Barker, Chief Robert Berg, Judge Jeanette Dalton, Ms. Callie Dietz, Ms. Delilah George, Mr. Rich Johnson, Judge J. Robert Leach, Ms. Brooke Powell, Judge Steven Rosen, Mr. Bob Taylor, Mr. Jon Tunheim, Ms. Aimee Vance, Ms. Yolande Williams, Judge Thomas J. Wynne Opposed: None Abstaining: Ms. Barb Miner

Absent: Judge Jim Heller Motion: Judge Jeanette Dalton

I move that the JISC approve the Superior Court Case Management System (SC-CMS) Court User Work Group’s (CUWG) and the AOC SC-CMS Project Team’s recommendations to use new codes and formats in the new statewide case management system for the 37 Superior Courts and County Clerk’s offices implementing Odyssey.

Second: Judge Thomas Wynne Voting in Favor: Justice Mary Fairhurst, Mr. Larry Barker, Chief Robert Berg, Judge Jeanette Dalton, Ms. Callie Dietz, Ms. Delilah George, Mr. Rich Johnson, Judge J. Robert Leach, Ms. Barb Miner, Ms. Brooke Powell, Judge Steven Rosen, Mr. Bob Taylor, Mr. Jon Tunheim, Ms. Aimee Vance, Ms. Yolande Williams, Judge Thomas J. Wynne Opposed: None

Absent: Judge Jim Heller

Ms. Maribeth Sapinoso provided an update on the SC-CMS project to the JISC. Ms. Sapinoso began with the most recent activities surrounding the Pilot Site, followed by the Early Adopters,

JISC Minutes March 6, 2015 Page 6 of 9 then with Snohomish and Spokane counties for the 2016 statewide rollout. These recent activities included Lewis county case records and document images successfully converted into Odyssey. Also included was the successful conversion of statewide party records, close to 9 million records in total.

Other project milestones recently completed were the first Pilot Mock Go Live, kick off meetings and Odyssey demonstrations with the Early Adopter sites, conducting stakeholder meetings, securing training and training resources for Pilot and Early Adopter sites, initial technical readiness meetings with Snohomish and Spokane County, and providing working prototype and documentation to 3rd party vendors for the DMS link (“pointer”) option. Ms. Sapinoso continued with the project activities currently in progress and next steps. These activities include preparing for the Integrations Mock Go Live, the second Mock Go Live at Lewis County, and end user training for Pilot site.

JIS Priority Project ITG 41 Update Ms. Kate Kruller, ITG 41 Project Manager, updated the JISC on project activity. In October, the project schedule was placed on hold due to test resource constraints.

Ms. Kruller reported that testing resources were assigned to the project to continue the work whenever extra capacity was available at AOC. This persistence paid off – the Quality Assurance Testing is complete. Iteration 1 is in final preparations for release to run in pilot courts in April, 2015.

The timelines for the next steps are as follows:

• April – May, 2015 to implement the Preliminary Destruction Rules in four pilot courts (Everett Municipal Court, Yakima Municipal Court, Cowlitz District Court and Thurston District Court)

• June, 2015 - March, 2016 to implement the Preliminary Rules in the remaining 188 courts

• October, 2015 – August 2016 to program the New Destruction Rules when the pilot court implementation is finished.

The Project Manager will keep the ITG Project Steering Committee and Pilot Courts apprised of IT 41 Project progress going forward in to the implementation. Ms. Kruller will report back to the JISC in June, 2015 with any updates.

Legislative Update Ms. Mellani McAleenan provided a brief update on current legislative activity. AOC is tracking about 500 bills related to the judicial branch. There were approximately 2300 bills introduced this session to date. There have been about 275 fiscal notes for bills that affect the judicial branch in some manner. House of origin cut off is on March 11.

The House and Senate have taken on relatively controversial issues, and while there have been some partisan issues they have maintained a good rapport with each other. During the Senate transportation vote, a Senate democrat questioned the two-thirds majority requirement imposed by the Senate was valid. The lieutenant governor ruled that he would not enforce an

JISC Minutes March 6, 2015 Page 7 of 9 unconstitutional rule, the initiative on which it was based having already been overturned by the court. This is a good thing as it would have been hard for the senate to pass anything.

In terms of request legislation, the BJA bill on court transcripts and the one to add a judge to Skagit district court are moving along fine. The DMCJA has a bill to increase their civil jurisdictions, which passed the senate unanimously. It was rolled into a different bill on the house side as their house version isn’t moving. The SCJA bills are doing well - one of the bills would allow them to consult the JIS System before entering certain kinds of orders, protection orders or parenting plans. This is the same as a bill last year that got caught up in the time crunch and didn’t pass.

The Juvenile Records bill - House Bill 1481 and Senate Bill 5564 - started out as companion bills. They are still for the most part the same but they have some changes in them. They are both still moving, and the senate version is on the floor calendar for today, March 6. The bills would eliminate most juvenile offender LFO and would allow for sealing of the record even if the LFO is not paid in full.

House bill 1390 would apply to superior and limited jurisdiction courts and would create a formal indigency exception that applies RCW 10.101. It also establishes provisions about payment plans and, a particular issue for us from a technology perspective, a priority of payment for LFO. The bill has a fiscal impact to cities and counties, along with a JIS impact, in terms of lost revenue. One big impact is that our system can’t do what they want it to do. There is a huge fiscal impact to reprogram systems we are going to stop using. The bill is on the house floor calendar. The companion bill in the senate did not move out of committee.

Committee Report Data Dissemination Committee:

• The Committee welcomed newest member, Brooke Powell, the Juvenile Court Administrator for Snohomish County.

• The meeting minutes for December 5, 2014, and February 20, 2014, were approved.

• Spokane Request for RACFIDs for IT Personnel Ronald Miles presented Spokane County Superior Court Judge Salvatore Cozza’s request to allow three local non-court IT personnel, who are permanently assigned to the court, to be given RACFIDs for ongoing projects with the County Courts and Clerk’s Office. The Committee unanimously voted to approve the court’s request.

• Snohomish Co. PAO Request for Researcher Access Pam Jones from the Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office presented the request for a researcher from the County’s Human Services Department to be given level 25 JIS-LINK prosecutor access to assist with the Office’s recidivism study. After finding out what data the researcher would need to access, the Committee offered fee-waived data dissemination requests processed through the AOC instead of the JIS-LINK account. Ms. Jones agreed and the Committee unanimously voted to allow Snohomish County PAO to submit fee-waived DD requests to AOC for the purpose of the recidivism study.

JISC Minutes March 6, 2015 Page 8 of 9

• JABS access for Prosecutors and Public Defenders DDA Happold provided an update on the Committee’s request to move JABS access for prosecutors and public defenders off of courts’ RACFIDs, and instead, to be used with a JIS-LINK id.

• Case Type 7 Access for AGO and DSHS-CA DDA Happold provided an update on the Committee’s previous questions about case type 7 access. The DDC requested that DDA Happold bring the exemption log to the next meeting for the Committee to review.

• DD Training Draft Committee reviewed the draft and provided additional subject matter and suggestions.

• Other Business DDA Happold updated them on 2SSB 5564 Section 3 and SHB 1617.

Meeting Wrap Up Justice Mary Fairhurst asked the committee if they would agree to change the current pre-briefing process. Ms. Vicky Cullinane meets with each member briefing them on the upcoming agenda items and topics. Vicky records questions from members then relays the questions back to staff for answers. Going forward, all questions that are asked during pre-briefs will be shared with the appropriate staff so that answers can be provided at the meeting to the entire committee. Unless it is a simple answer, no answer will be return to the individual member prior to the meeting. This way all members will hear the concerns and questions of others and everyone will be aware of answers and responses. We will try this for the next couple meeting, Judge Dalton agreed, and no other members had comments. Justice Fairhurst will continue to be de-briefed on all feedback from members after Vicky meets with them. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Justice Fairhurst at 1:45 p.m. Next Meeting The next meeting will be April 24, 2015, at the AOC SeaTac Facility; from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Recap of Motions from March 6, 2015

Motion Summary Status

Recommend to the Supreme Court an increase in the current JIS assessment from $17 to $23 and increase of the base penalty for, $42 to $48.

Passed

JISC Minutes March 6, 2015 Page 9 of 9

I move that the JISC approve the Superior Court Case Management System (SC-CMS) Court User Work Group’s (CUWG) recommendation to use a new case number format in the new statewide case management system for the 37 Superior Courts and County Clerk’s offices implementing Odyssey.

Passed

I move that the JISC approve the Superior Court Case Management System (SC-CMS) Court User Work Group’s (CUWG) and the AOC SC-CMS Project Team’s recommendations to use new codes and formats in the new statewide case management system for the 37 Superior Courts and County Clerk’s offices implementing Odyssey.

Passed

Action Items

Action Item – From October 7th 2011 Meeting Owner Status

1 Confer with the BJA on JISC bylaw amendment regarding JISC communication with the legislature. Justice Fairhurst

Action Item – From September 5th 2014 Meeting

2 Find out whether individual persons’ SSNs are needed for the bank account process superior courts use on the BAA and BAS screens

Vicky Cullinane

Action Item – From March 6th 2015 Meeting

3 Send the AOC/King County Data Exchange Proposal to committee Pam Completed

4 JISC would like the Rules Committee to hold Rule 13 in abeyance until we (JISC) comes back with a follow up request.

Justice Fairhurst Completed

Administrative Office of the CourtsInformation Services Division Project Allocation & Expenditure Update

Initiatives--JIS Transition ALLOTTED EXPENDED VARIANCEInformation Networking Hub (INH)Information Networking Hub (INH) $1,500,000 $1,038,613 $461,387Information Networking Hub (INH) - Subtotal $1,500,000 $1,038,613 $461,387

Superior Court CMS13-15 Allocation $13,706,000 $11,776,010 $1,929,990COTS Prep $2,900,000 $677,836 $2,222,164Superior Court CMS Subtotal $16,606,000 $12,453,846 $4,152,154

Enterprise Content Management SystemECMS $1,426,000 $1,426,000 $0ECMS Subtotal $1,426,000 $1,426,000 $0

Equipment ReplacementEquipment Replacement - External $1,199,000 $1,072,440 $126,560Equipment Replacement - Internal $2,138,000 $1,936,163 $201,837Equipment Replacement Subtotal $3,337,000 $3,008,603 $328,397

TOTAL 2013-15 $22,869,000 $17,927,062 $4,941,938

Expenditures and Encumbrances as of March 31, 20152013-2015 Allocation

Page 1 of 4 Update JISC Exec 4-6-15.doc

April 2015 Update

State Revenue & Budget Update

The current economic and revenue operating environment much the same as it was in November 2014 (the previous forecast date).

o As of the February 20, 2015 forecast, general fund revenue is expected to increase by 8.7% to about $36.5 billion for the biennium ending June 30, 2017 and revenue for the biennium ending June 30, 2019 is expected to increase 9.1% to $39.8 billion ($3.3 b between biennia)

o The increase in revenue for 2015-2017 is about $2.9 billion. The increase necessary to maintain and fund new and existing programs is $2.1 billion, leaving $800 million for policy additions. Almost 75% ($2.1 billion) of the new revenue will be used to fund programs and costs previously implemented by the state legislature.

o There are definitional issues between what the Governor identifies as ongoing costs and what the Senate identifies as ongoing costs (about a $1.1 billion difference).

o McCleary still needs to be funded at $1.5b - $2.0 billion.

o Initiative 1351 is estimated to cost $2 billion during the 15-17 unless amended by the legislature.

o Even though revenue is projected to increase, costs are also increasing at an equal or greater pace.

The House released their version of the 2015-2017 budget on March 27, 2015. The overall budget being proposed by the House is favorable for the AOC. There are no budget reductions and all but a few requests are funded in the proposal. While the interpreter and Family and Juvenile Court Improvement Program (FJCIP) requests aren’t part of the House budget proposal, they were very interested in discussing both programs-which is a good sign. The House voted their version of the budget off the floor on April 2, 2015. Amendments included an additional $4.6 million to the Office of Public Defense (over and above what was included in the initial House budget) and an additional $3 million to the Office of Civil Legal Aid (over and above what was included in the initial House budget). No amendments to the Supreme Court, AOC, Law Library or Court of Appeals budgets.


The Senate released their version of the 2015-2017 budget on March 31, 2015. The Senate proposal includes a number of budget reductions, not included in the House proposal. The Senate budget proposal would, if passed as is,:

o Reduce the AOC general fund by approximately $10 million by: Eliminating research, Reducing judicial education, Requiring $4.2 million in additional reductions Eliminating LFO pass through funding to the county clerks and Reduce pass through funding to Thurston County for the impact of

cases that must be filed in Thurston County (superior court and county clerk).

o Not provide funding for the initiation of the CLJ-CMS project. o Fund the King County data exchange solely from the JIS account rather than

the state general fund. o Implement a $2 million fund switch between the state general fund and the

JIS account (decrease state general fund, increase the JIS account). o Not provide funding for a number of other budget request items (see the

table below for more detail).

AOC has developed a list of talking points, draft letters and a strategy for courts and stakeholders to use to ensure that the Senate budget does not pass in its current form.

There will be several more iterations of the House and Senate budget proposals over the next few weeks. The session officially ends April 26, 2015, however it is anticipated that the 2015-2017 budget will not be finalized by then necessitating one or more special legislative sessions.

The table below depicts the 2015-2017 budget request for the Administrative Office of the Courts compared to the most current House and Senate budget proposals. The table will be updated as new legislative proposals are released.


2015-17 Budget Comparisons

Administrative Office of the Courts Requested House Proposed Senate Proposed

JIS Maintenance Costs $1,159,000 $1,159,000 $0

BOXI v4 Upgrade $773,000 $773,000 $0

Mason County Superior Court Judge $236,000 $236,000 $236,000

Technical Adjustment Technology $278,000 $278,000 $0

Trial Court Language Access $5,070,000 $0 $0

FJCIP Expansion $428,000 $0 $0

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Staff $302,000 $302,000 $0

Superior Courts Case Management System $12,598,000 $12,598,000 $12,598,000

Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Case Management System $4,429,000 $4,429,000 $0

Courts of Limited Jurisdiction COTS Prep $1,297,000 $1,297,0000 $0

Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Information Network Hub $1,440,000 $1,440,000 $1,440,000

External Equipment Replacement $1,849,000 $1,849,000 $1,849,000

Internal Equipment Replacement $516,000 $516,000 $0

Appellate Courts Content Management System $313,000 $313,000 $313,000

Program from JRA (Governor’s Budget Request) $0 $0 $0

Expedited Data Exchange House:*$2.8 SGF, $4.3 JIS: Senate: $7,100,000 JIS account $7,100,000 $7,100,000 $7,100,000


Administrative Office of the Courts Requested House Proposed Senate Proposed

Legal Financial Obligations (HB 1390) $0 $916,000 $0

Home Detention (HB 1943) $0 $118,000 $0

One Family, One Team Partnership $0 $75,000 $75,000

Funds to Program IT System for Tax Court of Appeals $0 $0 $75,000

Eliminate Court Research $0 $0 ($1,064,000)

Eliminate LFO Grants $0 $0 ($981,000)

Fund Transfer-Increase JIS decrease State General Fund $0 $0 $2,000,000 JIS

($2,000,000) SGF

Reduce Thurston County Impact Fees $0 $0 ($808,000)

Operational Reduction (15%) $0 $0 ($4,210,000)

Reduce Judicial Education $0 $0 ($886,000)

Total Request AOC $37,788,000 $33,399,000 $15,737,000

Board for Judicial Administration Opposite House Fiscal Committee Cutoff Report Current as of Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Today is the 87th day of the 105-day legislative session. Tuesday, April 7, was the last day by which bills must have passed out of their fiscal committees in the opposite house. Bills necessary to implement the budget are not limited by these cutoffs. Here are the highlights regarding bills BJA is tracking and other legislation of interest: BJA Request Legislation HB 1061/SB 5174 SUMMARY: Changes the number of judges Skagit County District Court from two to three. POSITION: BJA request STATUS: SB 5174 passed Senate unanimously and is in House Rules HB 1111 SUMMARY: Updating the court transcriptionist statutes and implements the recommendations of the Court Management Council, in conjunction with pending court rule. POSITION: BJA Request STATUS: Passed the House unanimously and is on the Senate floor calendar DMCJA Request Legislation SB 5125 /HB 1328 SUMMARY: Would increase district court civil jurisdiction from $75,000 to $100,000. POSITION: DMCJA Request STATUS: Passed the Senate unanimously and is in House Rules SB 5126 /HB 1327 SUMMARY: Employment Security Department Subpoenas POSITION: DMCJA withdrew request for this bill due to a potential conflict with federal law. STATUS: Dead HB 2097 SUMMARY: Authorizing parity with superior courts in the setting of jury fees POSITION: DMCJA request. STATUS: Dead Page 1 BJA Bill Summary 4/8/2015

SCJA Request Legislation SHB 1617 SUMMARY: Would allow courts to consult the Judicial Information System and related databases to review criminal history and determine whether other proceedings involving the parties are pending prior to entering certain orders. POSITION: SCJA Request STATUS: Passed House 92-6 and is in Senate Rules HB 1618 SUMMARY: Requires a person objecting to the relocation of a child to establish adequate cause for a hearing on the objection. POSITION: SCJA Request STATUS: Died in House Rules SB 5101 SUMMARY: Technical change to acknowledge that the Department of Corrections no longer files presentence reports and allows the court to a mental evaluation even in the absence of a presentence report. POSITION: SCJA request STATUS: Passed Senate unanimously and is in House Rules SB 5104 SUMMARY: Allows a court to order participation in rehabilitative programs if the court finds that any chemical dependency contributed to the offense. POSITION: SCJA Request STATUS: Passed Senate unanimously and is in House Rules DATA DISSEMINATION/ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS HB 1481/E2SSB 5564 SUMMARY: Eliminates most juvenile offender legal financial obligations and allows for sealing when 80% of restitution is paid. Has been amended many times. POSITION: Support. STATUS: Passed Senate 48-1 and is in House Rules ESHB 1553 SUMMARY: Creates a process by which a person with a criminal record can be granted a certificate of restoration of opportunity, which removes any professional bar imposed solely as a result of the conviction. POSITION: Support STATUS: Passed House unanimously but died in Senate Law & Justice Page 2 BJA Bill Summary 4/8/2015

BILLS AFFECTING AOC EMPLOYEES AND/OR JUDGES HB 1028 SUMMARY: Requires cities and counties to provide court security. POSITION: Support STATUS: Dead HB 1397/SB 5308 SUMMARY: Amended to allow judges and certain others to maintain their address confidentiality for their time in office rather than needing to resubmit the request. POSITION: Support STATUS: Passed House 78-20 and is in Senate Rules SB 5980 SUMMARY: Creates a defined contribution plan for elected officials. Does not include judges. POSITION: Not reviewed. AOC staff does not work on retirement bills. STATUS: Referred to Ways and Means SB 5982 SUMMARY: Increases the retirement age for persons hired after 12/31/15 POSITION: Not reviewed. AOC staff does not work on retirement bills. STATUS: Heard in Ways & Means on March 24 SB 6005 SUMMARY: Changes the average final wage calculation for retirees hired after 7/1/15. POSITION: Not reviewed. AOC staff does not work on retirement bills. STATUS: Heard in Ways & Means on March 24 ELECTIONS HB 1051 SUMMARY: Makes Supreme Court justice elections partisan. POSITION: Oppose STATUS: Dead HB 1350 SUMMARY: Providing for the election of Supreme Court justices from three judicial districts. POSITION: Watch STATUS: Dead HB 2030 SUMMARY: Establishing districts from which Supreme Court justices are elected. POSITION: Watch STATUS: Dead Page 3 BJA Bill Summary 4/8/2015

HJR 4201 SUMMARY: Creating election districts for Supreme Court judicial positions. POSITION: Watch STATUS: Dead HJR 4207 SUMMARY: Requires that all mandatory, regulatory, licensing, and disciplinary functions regarding the practice of law and administration of justice reside exclusively in the Supreme Court. POSITION: Not reviewed STATUS: Dead HJR 4211 SUMMARY: Amending the Constitution to provide for Supreme Court districts. POSITION: Watch STATUS: Dead SB 5685 SUMMARY: Concerning the election of Supreme Court justices by district. POSITION: Watch STATUS: Dead SJR 8205 SUMMARY: Amending the state Constitution so that justices of the Supreme Court are elected by qualified electors of a Supreme Court judicial district. POSITION: Watch STATUS: Died in Senate Rules PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS HB 1305/SB 5107 SUMMARY: Encourages the creation of therapeutic courts in Washington and consolidates current law into a single chapter. POSITION: Support STATUS: Passed Senate unanimously and was amended in House Appropriations on April 7 LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS HB 1016 SUMMARY: If offender is homeless or mentally ill, failure to pay legal financial obligations is not willful noncompliance. POSITION: Not reviewed STATUS: Dead Page 4 BJA Bill Summary 4/8/2015

E2SHB 1390/SB 5713 SUMMARY: Amended in Senate Law & Justice to reduce interest rates on legal financial obligations to 6%. Limits collection of DNA fee to one time. Adds language that states courts do not have to make an individualized inquiry into the defendant’s current and future ability to pay. POSITION: Watch STATUS: Bill passed House 94-4 and was amended in Law & Justice and Ways & Means. Bill passed Ways & Means on April 7 JURY SERVICE SHB 1610 SUMMARY: Reduces the term of service for jurors. Allows exception for smaller jury pools. POSITION: Support STATUS: Signed by Governor Inslee on April 1 FILING FEES EHB 1729 SUMMARY: As amended in Senate Human Services, adds a $15 surcharge to dissolution filings to fund the DV Prevention Account. The surcharge expires in 2020. POSITION: Not reviewed STATUS: In Senate Rules SB 6092 SUMMARY: Court marshals are added to the list of uniformed personnel entitled to use interest arbitration under PECBA. A $1 surcharge is imposed on small claims actions. 25% remits to the state judicial stabilization trust account and 75% is retained by the county for courthouse security. POSITION: Not reviewed STATUS: In Senate Rules OTHER HB 1772 SUMMARY: Repealing provisions concerning the Washington State Bar Association. POSITION: Not reviewed STATUS: Dead Page 5 BJA Bill Summary 4/8/2015

HB 1885/2SSB 5755 SUMMARY: Implements recommendations of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative by addressing and mitigating the impacts of property crimes. POSITION: Watch STATUS: Senate bill passed 40-9 and was heard in House Public Safety on March 24. Dead unless resurrected during the budget process E2HB 1943 SUMMARY: Creates standards for electronic monitoring/home detention. Requires AOC to develop forms. POSITION: Watch STATUS: In Senate Rules HB 2076/SSB 5752 SUMMARY: The Caseload Forecast Council (CFC) must make recommendations for producing racial impact statements on the effect proposed legislation will have on racial and ethnic minorities, including how legislation will impact the racial and ethnic composition of the criminal and juvenile justice systems. POSITION: Support STATUS: Bill died in Rules SHB 2085 SUMMARY: Authorizes community restitution/community service in lieu of payment for traffic infractions. POSITION: Not reviewed. AOC offered a technical amendment. STATUS: Passed House 83-15, was amended in Senate Law & Justice and referred to Rules 2SSB 5449/HB 2111 SUMMARY: Creates a tax division of the court of appeals. POSITION: Concerns STATUS: Is in Senate Rules and referenced in Senate budget SB 5647 SUMMARY: Allowing counties to create guardianship courthouse facilitator programs. POSITION: No position STATUS: Passed Senate 48-0 and is in House Rules SB 5658 SUMMARY: The requirement to process certain documents is moved from the county clerk to the petitioning party. Amended to remove sections relating to juvenile records in Judiciary. POSITION: Not reviewed. STATUS: Passed Senate 47-1 and is in House Rules Page 6 BJA Bill Summary 4/8/2015

SB 5766 SUMMARY: Concerning monitoring agencies providing electronic monitoring. POSITION: Watch STATUS: Died in Senate Rules BUDGET HB 1105/SB 5076 SUMMARY: Early supplemental operating budget, limited to wildfire and mental health needs. POSITION: Not reviewed STATUS: Signed by governor HB 1106/SB 5077 SUMMARY: Making 2015-2017 operating appropriations. POSITION: Pro on judicial branch section in Governor’s budget. House Appropriations draft is ok. Senate chair’s draft is untenable. (Governor’s version includes Supreme Court budget) STATUS: Committee and floor action occurring during the week of March 30-April 3. Negotiations will follow. EHB 1115/ SB 5097 SUMMARY: Capital budget request funding for maintenance and security of Temple of Justice. POSITION: Support judicial branch portions. STATUS: Request was not included. Passed House 96-2. Scheduled for executive action in Ways & Means on April 9 SB 5064/ HB 1477 SUMMARY: Requires a quarterly revenue forecast on February 20th during both a long and short legislative session year. POSITION: Not reviewed STATUS: Senate bill passed senate unanimously and referred to Appropriations

Page 7 BJA Bill Summary 4/8/2015

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS Information Services Division

Page 1


Page 1

INHEnterprise Data Repository

Project Update

Dan Belles, PMP - Project ManagerApril 24, 2015


Page 2

INH EDRRecent Activities

Database• Data Modeling – Developing the database• Data Classification – Organizing data• Developing Security Model and Classifications• Gap Analysis – Mapping data to standards

Data Exchanges Developing – Three new INH web services Testing – Created 80+ Scripts to test web services

KCDC Data Exchange Proposal In Scope/Out of Scope Agreements Finalized• AOC/KC Business/Technical/Planning Discussions


Page 3

INH EDR KCDC Pilot Go Live –Proposed Schedule

• Feb 2015 AOC provides the JIS Standard Data elements to King County District Court

for inclusion in their RFP

• March 2015• AOC start-up activities (hiring, contracts, facilities, on-boarding of new staff) King County District Court RFP Released

• July 2015 • Legislative funding is available• AOC/King County Data Exchange Project Start

• Aug 2015• KCDC needs specifications & access to the AOC development prototype

environment • KCDC will need AOC feedback regarding KCDC’s data migration plan


Page 4

INH EDR KCDC Pilot Go Live –Proposed Schedule Cont’d

• July/Sept 2016• EDR Database is available to King County• EDR basic functionality (web services) is available for on-boarding King

County District Pilot Court• KCDC can send the JIS Data Standards information electronically to AOC• The rest of the state would be able to see KCDC’s data via the new enhanced

JABS Statewide Viewer application pulling data from the EDR

• Oct/Dec 2016• Public safety data exchanges are available for KCDC • KCDC can do a pilot with one of their nine court locations

• Dec 2016/Feb 2017• KCDC Go-Live


Page 5

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019INH EDR Pilot Implementation

King County District Court

INH EDR Early Adopter Court

INH EDR available to Other courts

Solution Design

INH Funding Available

Startup Activities:Hiring StaffContractsFacilitiesOn-Boarding

Test

Go-Live

King CountyClerk’s Office

KCDC RFP Release

AOC

Proposed High-Level Schedule


Page 6

Active Project Risks

Risk Probability/Impact Mitigation0 0 0

Total Project Risks

Low Exposure Medium Exposure High Exposure0 0 8

Significant Risk Status


Page 7

RiskCategories

Legacy Application Risk – The risk of not being able to support legacy systems at AOC and KC and keep them operational.

Budget Risk – The risk of inadequate legislative funding.

Project Risk - The integration work between old and new systems is complex and not solvable by a COTS package.


Page 8

Legacy Application Risks• Operational failure of the King County District Court’s

numerous subsystems.

• Data conversion from AOC’s legacy systems requires the knowledge and expertise of key AOC legacy programmers that are in high demand by other projects and have limited availability. Hiring new staff or contractors will not solve that problem. King County is facing the same situation.


Page 9

Budget Risks• Legislature does not provide funds from the General Fund

for the data exchange work impeding the AOC’s ability to move forward with this project.

• Legislative delay in passing a budget will delay the project implementation.


Page 10

Project Risks• Logistical issues such as the timeline for hiring consultants to assist

with the EDR may cause the project to be delayed beyond when the King County District Court Case Management System goes into production.

• The estimate of the work effort is high-level with a lot of unknowns. The details will not be known until the project is further along.

• There may be critical tasks that take a certain amount of time to complete and adding resources will not make it happen sooner.

• EDR is being built with a systems architecture that has not been implemented for a statewide court project before. There may be factors which are unknowable at this point in the project that could have a major impact on scope, cost and timelines.


Page 11

Issue Urgency/Impact ActionResources with critical court business knowledge are not available due to assignment to other critical priority projects.

High/High The project teams are coordinating the use of limited resources as much as possible and adding resources where possible to mitigate project delays.

Active Project Issues

Significant Issues Status

Total Project IssuesLow Urgency Medium Urgency High Urgency Closed

0 0 1 0


Page 12

Next Steps

• Complete data modeling • Complete data classification • Complete data mapping • Continue database development• Continue security model design• Continue performance testing• Continue planning and procurement activities - for

planned KCDC Go Live


Page 1

ITG Request 45 – Appellate Courts Enterprise Content

Management System(AC-ECMS)

Project Update

Martin Kravik, Project Manager

April 24, 2014


Page 2

Contract Amendment 3 was approved. It split development into 4 iterations:

A. Base system and document structureB. WorkView (case management) and associated

workflowsC. Screening, motion and judicial workflowsD. Supreme Court specific workflows

Iteration A was delivered, tested and accepted by the Project Executive Steering Committee on February 13, 2015

Recent Activities


Page 3

Recent Activities (cont.)• Iteration B – WorkView and Associated Workflows

are underway• AOC team developed several JIS data queries for

populating trial court information, drop down lists, and in flight cases in AC-ECMS

• Modifications to eFiling are underway• Requirements analysis for JIS Link/Appellate Court

Data modifications is underway


Page 4

• Finalize Iteration B – Base System and Document Structure:o Configurationo Trainingo User acceptance testingo Production ready

• Begin document conversion• Continue eFiling modifications• Begin JIS Link/Appellate Court Data modification design

Next Steps


Page 5

Project Milestone Schedule


Page 6


Risk Probability/Impact Mitigation0 0 0

Total Project Risks




Page 7

Issue Urgency/Impact ActionContract scope and cost issue raised by the vendor.

High/High Understand the issue.Develop our stance.Negotiate the outcome with the vendor.

Active Project Issues


Total Project IssuesLow Urgency Medium Urgency High Urgency Closed

1 0 1 6


Page 8

• The vendor delivered 2 reports to AOC:1. Proposed reduction in scope and/or increase in cost

2. Outlined specific scope issues

• ImageSoft let their project manager go• Meetings with the vendor occurred to discuss the

reports• Vendor submitted a revision of their second report

Significant Issues


Page 9

• An AOC/Court Stakeholder negotiation team was formed and a strategy developed

• Meetings occurred to keep Justice Fairhurst and the project executive steering committee up to date

Significant Issues (cont.)


Page 10

Project MilestonesMilestone Date Functional Specification Document accepted August 2014 Iteration A - Base system and doc structure December 2014Iteration B – WorkView and Associated Workflows April 2015Iteration C – Screening, Motion, and Judicial Workflows June 2015Iteration D – Supreme Court Specific Workflows August 2015Document Mapping Specification January 2015Document Conversion – COA Division I August 2015Document Conversion – COA Division II August 2015Document Conversion – COA Division III August 2015eFiling Modifications August 2015JIS Link Modifications August 2015Production (Go Live) complete August 2015


Page 1

Superior Court Case Management System

(SC-CMS) Project Update

Maribeth Sapinoso, AOC Program ManagerMarie Constantineau, AOC Deputy Project Manager

April 24, 2015


Page 2

Recent ActivitiesPilot

Integration Mock Go Live – March 24-26, 2015

Approximately 117 integration projects for Pilot (Case & Party)

Verified 72 case replication development work to date

Verified 20 party synchronization development work to date 25 Outstanding development efforts not yet verified Verified batch processes involving Legal Financial Obligation

(LFO) billing, WSBA imports, and Department of Correction (DOC) payments


Page 3

Recent ActivitiesPilot

Business Mock Go Live #2 at Lewis County –April 21-23, 2015

• Case Manager• Financials• Document Management System• Odyssey Portal• Judge Edition• Data Conversion• Business Processes• Overall Performance (System and Application)• Triaging defects and issues reported by end users


Page 4

Recent Activities Project Steering Committee voted to include

Juvenile users read only access to Odyssey –March 10, 2015

CUWG voted to not require auditing functionality in current release – March 25, 2015

Conducted kick off meeting with Snohomish County – March 27, 2015

Conducted Odyssey and Judge Edition demonstration at Skagit County – April 2, 2015


Page 5

Work In Progress• Prepare to conduct Pilot end user training –

May/June 2015

• Validate remaining integration work from Tyler

• Prepare to implement statewide party synchronization in Odyssey – June 2015

• Finalize transition plan for Odyssey operational support


Page 6

Next Steps GO LIVE @ Lewis County – June 15, 2015

Conduct Early Adopter business process reviews and configuration

Conduct first Early Adopter data pushes – July 2015

Conduct first data conversion review by Early Adopter sites – July 2015


Page 7

Phase 3 – Pilot ImplementationMILESTONES or PROJECT DELIVERABLES CURRENT PLAN DATE

Integration Testing Begins January 2015

Fourth Data Conversion Push (including Document Images)

January 2015

Pilot Mock Go-Live #1 (at AOC) February 2015

Tyler Development (Integration) Work Completed March 2015

Pilot Mock Go-Live #2 (at Lewis County) April 2015

Integration Testing Completed May 2015

New Tyler Development (Integration) Work Completed May 2015

Pilot End User Training Completed May/June 2015

Party Synchronization Go-Live June 2015

Pilot Go-Live Conversion Activities Begin June 2015

New Tyler Development (Application) Work Completed August 2015

®

Quality Assurance AssessmentSC-CMS Project

Bluecrane, Inc.

March 2015Page i

Table of Contents

Part 1: Executive Summary and Assessment Dashboard ............................................................ 1

Part 2: bluecrane Detailed Assessment Report for March 2015 ................................................... 5

Part 3: Review of bluecrane Approach ....................................................................................... 18

®


Bluecrane, Inc.

March 2015Page 1

Part 1: Executive Summary and Assessment Dashboard

Executive Summary

This report provides the March 2015 quality assurance (QA) assessment by Bluecrane, Inc. (“bluecrane”) for the State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Superior Court – Case Management System (SC-CMS) Project.

Resource Constraints Late completion of data integration components, business processes, and other key deliverables have resulted from resource limitations in several areas of the project due to budgetary constraints and the difficulty in developing accurate estimates of effort for activities that are unfamiliar to the staff assigned to them. Although the project continues to make effective use of the resources allocated to the project and to utilize AOC resources outside of the project team to work towards a successful Pilot Go-Live, the current resource allocation may be insufficient to adequately support the rollout of counties beyond the pilot. In the past several reports, we have recommended that the project perform an evaluation of the resources required for a successful rollout to early adopter counties in the later part of 2015 and follow-on counties in 2016. However, since the current project resources are consumed with completing deliverables and preparation for the Pilot Go-Live, bluecrane will conduct a resource assessment in collaboration with the project team as part of our planned Go-Live readiness assessment. The resource assessment will evaluate resources required to complete preparations for the Pilot Go-Live, support Lewis County following Go-Live, and implement the early adopter and remaining follow-on counties.

Integrations Mock Go-Live A second Mock Go-Live for Lewis County targeting the integration and synchronization of data between Odyssey and the Judicial Information System (JIS) was conducted in March. Although problems were identified and some of the integrations had not been fully tested prior to the Mock Go-live, the event was successful in evaluating the integration architectural framework and infrastructure. A Lessons Learned session was conducted following the Mock Go-Live to identify areas for improvements for the upcoming additional Mock Go-Lives.

Schedule Risks Related to Integrations Work We continue to note the schedule risk related to completion of the integrations between Odyssey and other AOC systems. The project developed and began execution of contingency plans in March for the possibility that some of the less frequently used integrations will not be ready for use until after the Lewis Go-Live event.

Risk of Data Center Move If Conducted during the SC-CMS Implementation

We learned in December that AOC has been asked to assess the viability of migrating server and network equipment currently residing in the AOC data center to the state Consolidated Technology Services (CTS) data center as part of the state data center consolidation initiative. The initiation of a project to migrate the AOC data center to the state data center during the SC-

®


Bluecrane, Inc.

March 2015Page 2

CMS implementation would create a significant risk to the success of the SC-CMS project. The SC-CMS project has very high visibility to the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of the state government. All unnecessary risks to the on-time completion of the SC-CMS project should be avoided to ensure the successful implementation of the new court system.

®

Quality Assurance Assessment for WA State Administrative Office of the Courts SC-CMS Project

Bluecrane, Inc.

March 2015 Assessment Page 3

Executive Dashboard – Risks At-a-Glance

Category Area of Assessment Urgency Noteworthy Risks/Comments

Extreme Risks

(No Extreme Risks to Report)

Noteworthy Risks

Infrastructure Statewide Infrastructure

Serious Consideration

AOC has been requested to assess the viability of migrating server and network equipment currently residing in the AOC data center to the state data center as part of the state data center consolidation initiative. The initiation of a project to migrate the AOC data center to the state data center during the SC-CMS implementation would create a significant risk to the success of the SC-CMS project.

Risks Being Addressed

Project Management and Sponsorship Schedule Urgent

Consideration Although efforts to identify and estimate the work required to complete the

integration of Odyssey with other AOC systems continued in March, there continues to be uncertainty in the effort and duration of activities.

®

Quality Assurance Assessment for WA State Administrative Office of the Courts SC-CMS Project

Bluecrane, Inc.

March 2015 Assessment Page 4

Category Area of Assessment Urgency Noteworthy Risks/Comments

Risks Being Addressed (continued)

People Staffing Urgent Consideration

The current resource allocation may be insufficient to adequately support the rollout of counties beyond the pilot, in accordance with the currently planned schedule. A resource assessment is underway.

People Business Processes

Urgent Consideration

Because of the continuation of constrained resources, the business processes completion due date was again missed in March. The evaluation of activities assigned to project staff is underway.

Application Application Interfaces

Urgent Consideration

Although additional technical and testing resources have been allocated to the integration activities, there continues to be uncertainty in the effort and duration of activities.

®

Quality Assurance Assessment Bluecrane, Inc. March 2015 Assessment

Page 5

Part 2: bluecrane Detailed Assessment Report for March 2015

bluecrane Quality Assurance Dashboard for the Washington AOC SC-CMS Project

Project Area Summary

Project Area Highest Level of Assessed Risk

Project Management and Sponsorship Risk Being Addressed

People Risk Being Addressed

Application Risk Being Addressed

Data No Risk Identified

Infrastructure Risk

®


Page 6

Category: Project Management and Sponsorship Jan

2015 Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Governance No

Risk Identified

No Risk

Identified

No Risk

Identified Urgency: N/A

Observation: Governance is defined in the Project Charter and is being executed effectively by the Project Leadership, Executive Sponsors, Steering Committee, and JISC.

Category: Project Management and Sponsorship Jan 2015

Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Scope No

Risk Identified

No Risk

Identified

No Risk


Observation: Scope is being managed effectively through the Requirements Traceability Matrix, Tyler contract deliverables, and the Project Change Management process. A decision was made in March to increase the number of users of the system through the addition of court staff that work with juvenile cases who would be granted read-only access to some of the Superior Court case and party data. Work is underway to incorporate the impact to training, user support, organizational change management, and infrastructure.

®


Page 7


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Schedule Risk

Being Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed Urgency: Urgent Consideration

Observation/Risk 1 – Integrations between Odyssey and JIS: We continue to note the schedule risk related to completion of the integrations between Odyssey and other AOC judicial information systems (JIS). Some of the integration components may not be ready for use until after the Lewis Go-Live event or may cause production data problems if defects are not identified during testing.

Impact: If some of the integrations have not been completed or thoroughly tested by the Lewis County Go-Live event, it may be necessary to implement work-arounds that may require manual manipulation of data in either Odyssey or JIS or both.

Recommendation: We agree with the approach being taken by the SC-CMS Project Team to develop contingency plans in response to the risk that not all integration components will be operational at the time of the Lewis County Go-Live in June. The integration tasks should be prioritized in terms of the manual effort required to maintain any data between Odyssey and JIS that is not being processed through the automated interface with focus given to the integrations that will reduce the most manual effort at Go-Live.

Status: The project developed and began execution of contingency plans in March for the possibility that some of the less frequently needed integration components will not be ready for use until after the Lewis Go-Live event. The contingency planning will include use of the SC-CMS Help Desk who will perform any manual work-arounds in addition to monitoring and correcting integration transaction failures.

Observation 2 - Mock Go-Live: A second Mock Go-Live for Lewis County targeting the integration and synchronization of data between Odyssey and the Judicial Information System (JIS) was conducted in March. Although problems were identified and some of the integrations had not been fully tested prior to the Mock Go-live, the event was successful in evaluating the integration architectural framework and infrastructure. A Lessons Learned session was conducted following the Mock Go-Live to identify areas for improvements for the upcoming additional Mock Go-Lives.

®


Page 8


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Budget No

Risk Identified

No Risk

Identified

No Risk


Observation: When information/results are available from the Pilot County implementation, the Steering Committee will reassess the local cost framework, potentially revise the framework based on the Pilot County experience, and then make a recommendation to the JISC for cost sharing between the State and the local levels for the next phase of SC-CMS. The budget may be impacted through the addition of juvenile court users to the project scope.

®


Page 9


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Project Communications

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

Urgency: N/A

Observation: The project utilizes several approaches to communicate information to project stakeholders. Project status is communicated to AOC management, project team members, and other AOC stakeholders in multiple weekly meetings. Project Steering Committee Meetings are conducted monthly. Information is provided to representatives of the Judges, Clerks, and Administrators associations who pass information to the association members through their normal communication paths.

Status: The SC-CMS project and Tyler publish a monthly status report.

Recommendation: Although there are multiple approaches to communicating project status and organizational change management information, it would be advisable for the project to conduct periodic surveys to determine the effectiveness of the various forms of communication being utilized. Effectiveness could be measured by gauging the project-related knowledge of internal and external stakeholders at all levels. Based on the results of surveys, approaches to project communications can be revised. Some approaches may be eliminated if they are found to be ineffective, or supplemental communications may be necessary to augment the current forms of communications.

®


Page 10


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Staffing and Project Facilities No

Risk Identified

No Risk

Identified

Risk Being

Addressed Urgency: N/A

Observation/Risk: Late completion of data integration components, business processes, and other key deliverables have resulted from resource limitations in several areas of the project due to budgetary constraints and the difficulty in developing accurate estimates of effort for activities that are unfamiliar to the staff assigned to them. Although the project continues to make effective use of the resources allocated to the project and to utilize AOC resources outside of the project team to work towards a successful Pilot Go-Live, the current resource allocation may be insufficient to adequately support the rollout of counties beyond the pilot. In the past several reports, we have recommended that the project perform an evaluation of the resources required for a successful rollout to early adopter counties in the later part of 2015 and follow-on counties in 2016. However, since the current project resources are consumed with completing deliverables and preparation for the Pilot Go-Live, bluecrane will conduct a resource assessment in collaboration with the project team as part of our planned Go-Live readiness assessment. The resource assessment will evaluate resources required to complete preparations for the Pilot Go-Live, support Lewis County following Go-Live, and implement the early adopter and remaining follow-on counties.


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Change Management

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

Urgency: N/A

Observation: The scope and budget have been baselined. All requests for changes to scope or budget will go through the SC-CMS change management process. Many of the work activities in the project schedules have not been baselined. A change request was processed to increase the number of users of the system with the addition of juvenile court users.

®


Page 11


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Risk Management

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

Urgency: N/A

Observation: The project is identifying and tracking risks at an adequate level.


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Issue Management

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

Urgency: N/A

Observation: The project is identifying and tracking issues at an adequate level.


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Quality Management

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

Urgency: N/A

Observation: The project team has developed a Quality Management Plan.

®


Page 12

Category: People Jan 2015

Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Stakeholder Engagement

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

Urgency: N/A

Observation: Stakeholder engagement and organizational change management activities are underway.


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Business Processes / System Functionality

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

Risk Being

Addressed Urgency: N/A

Observation/Risk: The completion of the business processes for Pilot Go-Live was initially scheduled for January and then, due to resource constraints, targeted for completion at the end of March. However, the business analysts assigned to developing the business processes are also assigned to completing the configuring Odyssey and establishing rules for data conversion. Because of the continuation of constrained resources, the business processes completion due date was again missed in March.

Impact: If sufficient resources are not allocated to the completion of business process, system configuration, and conversion, one or more of the activities may not being completed in time for Go-Live or may be completed with inadequate quality.

Recommendation: bluecrane will assist the project team in assessing the resources required for completion of activities for Pilot Go-Live and the roll-out of the remaining counties.

®


Page 13


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Contract Management / Deliverables Management

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

Urgency: N/A

Observation/Risk: The list and schedule of vendor deliverables are identified in the Tyler contract and are being managed by the project team.

Category: Application Jan 2015

Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Application Architecture No

Risk Identified

No Risk

Identified

No Risk


Observation: Application architecture has been developed and documented and is being implemented in the various project activities.

®


Page 14


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Requirements Management

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

Urgency: N/A

Observation: The project’s business analysts have loaded the SC-CMS requirements into the Rational Requirements Composer (RRC) requirements management tool that is being used to document requirements and for traceability. The CBO and CUWG will document Use Cases for the To-Be processes as needed.


Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Application Interfaces Risk

Being Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed

Risk Being

Addressed Urgency: Urgent Consideration

Observation/Risk: In previous reports, we had identified a concern that software components required to integrate Odyssey with other AOC and state systems may not be completed on schedule. Impact: See Schedule impact above. Recommendation: See Schedule recommendation above. Status: An Integrations Mock Go-Live was conducted at the end of March. The Mock Go-Live demonstrated that the production integration infrastructure operates correctly and is providing adequate performance. Integration components that had been completed by the end of March were tested during the Integrations Mock Go-Live by participants from Lewis County. Although the Integration Mock Go-Live was successful in the evaluation of the underlying data integration framework, many of the integration components have not be tested and some component development is still underway. It is likely that some integration components will not be ready in time for Pilot Go-Live. However, the development of contingency plans for this risk is underway.

®


Page 15

Category: Data Jan 2015

Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Data Preparation

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

Urgency: N/A

Observation: The AOC Data Quality Coordinator will coordinate preparation of data in AOC and local court applications. One of the activities is the development of a data profiling report which will identify anomalies in data stored in Judicial Information System (JIS). The AOC System Support Technician will prepare and extract SCOMIS data for each superior court and county clerk office in the format that Tyler can import into Odyssey.

Status: AOC has begun identifying candidate areas in JIS that will be the focus of data cleansing activities. One of the areas of focus will be person data.

Category: Data Jan 2015

Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Data Conversion

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

No Risk Identified

Urgency: N/A

Observation: Conversion activities for the Pilot County continued in March.

®


Page 16

Category: Infrastructure Jan 2015

Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Statewide Infrastructure

Risk Risk Risk

Urgency: Serious Consideration

Observation: AOC has been requested to assess the viability of migrating server and network equipment currently residing in the AOC data center to the state data center as part of the state data center consolidation initiative. The initiation of a project to migrate the AOC data center to the state data center during the SC-CMS implementation would create a significant risk to the success of the SC-CMS project. The pilot county Go-Live date for the SC-CMS project is June 2015, with early-adopter counties scheduled for the following November and the remaining counties through 2018. The implementation for the pilot and early-adopter counties is very compressed with no schedule contingency.

Impact: A data center migration would result in two significant impacts to the SC-CMS project. First, the planning and execution of a data center migration would consume resources allocated to the SC-CMS implementation resulting in the delay of project deliverables and milestones that could impact the Go-Live dates for county implementations. The other potential impact would be to the availability of the statewide network or the availability of web, application, or data servers due to operational problems associated with a data center migration including performance, network, data, or security problems.

Recommendation: The SC-CMS project has very high visibility to the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of the state government. All unnecessary risks to the on-time completion of the SC-CMS project should be avoided to ensure the successful implementation of the new case management system.

®


Page 17

Category: Infrastructure Jan 2015

Feb 2015

Mar 2015

Area of Assessment: Local Infrastructure No

Risk Identified

No Risk

Identified

No Risk


Observation: The project team has begun discussions with the pilot county on local infrastructure readiness activities. The project meets with the pilot county weekly, via a conference call, to discuss any questions or issues.

®


Bluecrane, Inc.

March 2015 AssessmentPage 18

Part 3: Review of bluecrane Approach

We began our Quality Assurance engagement for the AOC SC-CMS Project by developing an understanding of the project at a macro level. We started by analyzing the following five “Project Areas”:

Project Management and Sponsorship People Application Data Infrastructure

It is not our practice to duplicate Project Management activities by following and analyzing each task and each deliverable that our clients are tracking in their project management software (such as Microsoft Project). Rather, we identify those groups of tasks and deliverables that are key “signposts” in the project. While there are numerous tasks that may slip a few days or even weeks, get rescheduled, and not have a major impact on the project, there are always a number of significant “task groups” and deliverables which should be tracked over time because any risk to those items – in terms of schedule, scope, or cost – have a potentially significant impact on project success.

We de-compose the five Project Areas listed above into the next lower level of our assessment taxonomy. We refer to this next lower level as the “area of assessment” level. The list of areas of assessment grows over the life of the project. The following list is provided as an example of typical areas of assessment:

Project Management and Sponsorship o Governance o Scope o Schedule o Budget o Communication o Staffing and Project Facilities o Change Management o Risk Management o Issue Management o Quality Management

People o Stakeholder Engagement o Business Processes/System Functionality o Vendor Procurement

®


Bluecrane, Inc.


o Contract Management/Deliverables Management o Training and Training Facilities o Local Court Preparation o User Support

Application o Application Architecture o Requirements Management o Implementation o Application Interfaces o Application Infrastructure o Reporting o Testing o Tools

Data o Data Preparation o Data Conversion o Data Security

Infrastructure o Statewide Infrastructure o Local Infrastructure o Technical Help Desk

For each area of assessment within a Project Area, we document in our QA Dashboard our observations, any issues and/or risks that we have assessed, and our recommendations. For each area we assess activities in the following three stages of delivery:

Planning – is the project doing an acceptable level of planning?

Executing – assuming adequate planning has been done, is the project performing tasks in alignment with the plans the project has established?

Results – are the expected results being realized? (A project that does a good job of planning and executing those plans, but does not realize the results expected by stakeholders, is a less than successful project. Ultimately, results are what the project is all about!)

®


Bluecrane, Inc.


Assessed status is rated at a macro-level using the scale shown in the table below.

Assessed Status Meaning

Extreme Risk

Extreme Risk: a risk that project management must address or the entire project is at risk of failure; these risks are “show-stoppers”

Risk Risk: a risk that is significant enough to merit management attention but not one that is deemed a “show-stopper”

Risk Being Addressed

Risk Being Addressed: a risk item in this category is one that was formerly red or yellow, but in our opinion, is now being addressed adequately and should be reviewed at the next assessment with an expectation that this item becomes green at that time

No Risk Identified No Risk Identified: “All Systems Go” for this item

Not Started Not Started: this particular item has not started yet or is not yet assessed

Completed or Not

Applicable

Completed/Not Applicable: this particular item has been completed or has been deemed “not applicable” but remains a part of the assessment for traceability purposes.

We recognize that simultaneously addressing all risk areas identified at any given time is a daunting task – and not advisable. Therefore, we prioritize risk items in our monthly reports as:

1. Very Urgent Consideration 2. Urgent Consideration 3. Serious Consideration

Given the current phase of the SC-CMS Project, these priorities translate to: 1. Very Urgent Consideration – Potential Impact to Configuration of the System 2. Urgent Consideration – Potential Impact to Project’s Readiness for Implementation 3. Serious Consideration – Potential Impact to the Successful Management of the Project

®


Bluecrane, Inc.


Rating risks at the macro-level using the assessed status and urgency scales described above provides a method for creating a snapshot that project personnel and executive management can review quickly, getting an immediate sense of project risks. The macro-level ratings are further refined by describing in detail what the risk/issue is and what remedial actions are being taken/should be taken to address the risk/issue. The result is a framework for AOC SC-CMS management to evaluate project risks – in terms of business objectives and traditional project management tasks.

We summarize the bluecrane QA Dashboard in Part 1 of our monthly report for review with client executives and project management. Part 2 of our monthly report provides the detailed QA Dashboard with all of the elements described above.


Page 1

ITG Request 41 - CLJ Revised Computer Records

Retention and Destruction

Project Update

Kate Kruller, PMP - Project ManagerApril 24, 2015


Page 2

Project Objectives• Eliminate all Courts of Limited Jurisdiction computer

record archiving in JIS applications

• Revise destruction of case records processes in JIS, based upon the records retention policy from the Data Dissemination Committee


Page 3

Recent ActivityCompleted Full System Testing: Mar 2015

• Pilot Court implementation is underwayo Everett Municipal Court, Yakima Municipal Court,

Cowlitz District Court and Thurston District Courto Preliminary Rules deployment (including existing

rules, plus eTicket and VRV compliance rules)


Page 4


Risk Probability/Impact MitigationSchedule Delay Low Project Executive Sponsor

authorizes any ITG 41 Project delays, if necessary

ISD staff redirects away from the project

Medium/High Work with ISD Functional Managers and Leadership to resolve the conflict through negotiation or prioritization

decisions

Total Project Risks




Page 5

Issue Urgency/Impact Action

Active Project IssuesTotal Project Issues

Active Monitor Deferred Closed0 0 0 0



Page 6

Next Steps• Continue to Implement Preliminary Rules - Pilot

April - May 2015o Restart destruction of records using preliminary

rules applied to cases in pilot courtso Updated Destruction of Records Report (DORR)

• Implement Preliminary Rules - All remaining CLJ courts: June 2015 - March, 2016

• New Rules Iteration Development: Oct 2015 – Aug 2016


Page 1

Court of Limited Jurisdiction Case Management System

(CLJ-CMS)

Project Update

Mike Walsh, PMP - Project ManagerApril 24, 2015


Page 2

Recent ActivitiesCompleted current state requirements gathering

and process analysis Increase project awareness communications

Letters requesting legislative supportGeneral information meetings with AOC staffUpdate project web sites with current information

• Progressing through future state requirements • Started procurement planning


Page 3

Schedule


Page 4

Requirements Gathering timeline

Indicates process review completed Indicates current state process

Indicates combined current/future state process

Indicates future state processes

Completed meetings


Page 5

Urgency/Impact Action

The approval of the KCDC project could impact resources or JIS funding for the new statewide CLJ case management system.

High/High Mitigation – AOC has requested the data exchange funding through the State General Fund and not the JIS account.

High Urgency Risk Status

Active Project RiskLow Urgency Medium Urgency High Urgency Closed

0 1 1 0


Page 6

Urgency/Impact Action

Not all stakeholders agree on the priority of statewide JIS resources (e.g., statewide case management system or data exchange).

High/Med Increase the awareness of progress to date through:• Communications to CLJ

courts stakeholders.• AOC all staff general

information meetings.• Update project web sites

with current Information.

High Urgency Issue Status

Active Project IssueLow Urgency Medium Urgency High Urgency Closed

0 0 1 0


Page 7

Next StepsMilestone DateContinue “future state” process engineering/requirements gathering

September 2015

Increase project awareness communication On going

March 2015 JIS IT Governance Update

Page 1 of 2

Completed JIS IT Governance Requests

ITG 219 - Remove Social Security Numbers from JIS and ITG 225 - VRV DX Correct Use of Violation Date Status Charts

Requests Completing Key Milestones

Current Active Requests by:

1 2

0 1 2 3 4

Completed

Scheduled

Authorized

Analysis Completed

New Requests

Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15

Endorsing Group

Court of Appeals Executive Committee 1 District & Municipal Court Management Association 12

Superior Court Judges Association 3 Data Management Steering Committee 0

Washington State Association of County Clerks

2 Data Dissemination Committee 2

Washington State Association of Juvenile Court Administrators

4 Codes Committee 5

District & Municipal Court Judges Association

2 Administrative Office of the Courts 6

Misdemeanant Corrections Association 1

Court Level User Group

Appellate Court 1 Superior Court 6

Courts of Limited Jurisdiction 11

Multi Court Level 8

Total:0

Total:0

Total:3

Total:0

Total:0

March 2015 JIS IT Governance Update

Page 2 of 2

Status of Requests by CLUG

Completions Since ITG Inception

Status of Requests by Authorizing Authority

Completions Since ITG Inception

15

7

3

9

2

2

1

7

3

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

CLJ

Superior Court

Appellate

Multi-Level

Scheduled Completed In Progress Authorized

26

7

4

1

4

8

8

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

CIO

Administrator

JISC

Scheduled Completed In Progress Authorized

Current IT Governance Priorities

For the Court Level User Groups

JISC Priorities

Priority ITG # Request Name StatusApproving

Authority

CLUG

Importance

1 002Superior Court Case Management

SystemIn Progress JISC High

2 045 Appellate Court ECMS In Progress JISC High

3 041CLJ Revised Computer Records and

Destruction ProcessIn Progress JISC High

4 102

Request for new Case Management

System to replace JIS

(ITG 174 – CLJ Probation Case

Management Included)

In Progress JISC High

5 027Expanded Seattle Municipal Court Case

Data TransferAuthorized JISC High

6 062 Automate Courts DCXT Table Entries Authorized JISC Medium

7 007 SCOMIS Field for CPG Number Authorized JISC High

8 026 Prioritize Restitution recipients Authorized JISC Medium

9 031Combine True Name and Aliases for

TimepayAuthorized JISC Medium

Current as of March 31, 2015

Appellate CLUG Priorities


Authority

CLUG

Importance

1 045 Appellate Courts ECMS In Progress JISC High



Superior CLUG Priorities


Authority

CLUG

Importance

1 107 PACT Domain 1 Integration Authorized Administrator High

2 007 SCOMIS Field for CPG Number Authorized JISC High

3 158 Implementation of MAYSI-2 Authorized CIO High

Non-Prioritized Requests

N/A 002Superior Court Case Management

SystemIn Progress JISC High




Courts of Limited Jurisdiction CLUG Priorities


Authority

CLUG

Importance

1 102 New Case Management System to Replace JIS In Progress JISC High

2 174 CLJ Probation Case Management System Awaiting Auth. CIO High

3 027 Expanded Seattle Muni Case Data Transfer Authorized JISC High

4 041CLJ Revised Computer Records Retention and

Destruction ProcessIn Progress JISC High

5 106Allow Criminal Hearing Notices to Print on Plain

Paper and Allow Entries

Awaiting

AuthorizationAdministrator Medium

6 032 Batch Enter Attorneys to Multiple Cases Authorized CIO Medium

7 068 Full Print on Docket Public View Authorized Administrator Medium

8 046 CAR Screen in JIS Authorized CIO Medium

9 031 Combine True Name & Aliases for Time Pay Authorized JISC Medium

10 026 Prioritize Restitution Recipients Authorized JISC Medium


Multi Court Level CLUG Priorities


Authority

CLUG

Importance

1 152 DCH and Sealed Juvenile Cases Authorized CIO High

2 178 Race & Ethnicity Data Fields Authorized Administrator Medium

3 116Display of Charge Title Without

Modifier of AttemptAuthorized Administrator Medium

4 062 Automate Courts DCXT Table Entries Authorized JISC Medium

5 141 Add Bond Transferred Disposition Code Authorized CIO Medium

Non-Prioritized Requests

N/A 003 Imaging and Viewing of Court Documents Authorized Administrator Not Specified


